The US entering the war a turn earlier is important, but the effect on their build points over the years is even more important. It is not only the big hit of having their build points jump on the turn they take various US Entry Options, but there is another big hit each year on the anniversary of passing the war appropriations bill.

So depriving France or the Commonwealth of a few resources/production points early in the war has to be balanced against increasing the US build points in the out years.

20% does not equal impossible. AAMOF if you do it both turns in 1939 the chance for the USA to get one extra chit is 36%. The 1939 chit pool is much better to draw from for the USA than the 39-40 pool. You might be happy with Italy but your axis partners will be less than impressed.

Since "Search & Seizure" only occurs during the production phase by SCS and submarines that stay at sea how are you figuring 36%?

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

20% does not equal impossible. AAMOF if you do it both turns in 1939 the chance for the USA to get one extra chit is 36%. The 1939 chit pool is much better to draw from for the USA than the 39-40 pool. You might be happy with Italy but your axis partners will be less than impressed.

Since "Search & Seizure" only occurs during the production phase by SCS and submarines that stay at sea how are you figuring 36%?

With the number of dice rolls per turn you cannot lump 2 turns together.

My formulae have always been for multiple actions of the same type in a single turn by adding the percents together.

Example: 2x "Search & Seizure" in one turn would be 40%

I feel this is very over generous. What is your formula?

I taught statistics at the college level. The way to combine the probabilities of a sequence of independent events is what I used. It can be shown rather simply using a tree diagram. At the top are the different outcomes of the first die roll. Beneath each of those outcomes insert the full set of possibilities of the second die roll, and so on down the page, building a tree structure.

In this case there were two possible outcomes for each event. So the top level has 2 outcomes, the second level has 4, the third level, 8 and so on increasing by powers of 2.

If there were more possible outcomes (e.g., in land, naval, or air combats), say 5, then the first level would have 5, the second 25, and the third 125. This is what makes calculating the likelihood of success for a groups of attacks on a front line so difficult.

Chess is considered very difficult because the branching logic for possible outcomes (i.e., moves) is so large. But really there are ~20 per side per turn. That makes looking a couple of turns ahead 20**4 = 160,000 possible outcomes/positions. WIF is much worse, because there are easily 100 units that can move and attack in a turn (air + naval + land). Depending on where the units stop their movement, the attacks can vary enormously. Throw in weather and action choices, and the possibilities surely increase to the thousands per side per impulse. 4 impulses would then yield, say, 2000**4 = 16,000,000,000,000.

With the number of dice rolls per turn you cannot lump 2 turns together.

My formulae have always been for multiple actions of the same type in a single turn by adding the percents together.

Example: 2x "Search & Seizure" in one turn would be 40%

I feel this is very over generous. What is your formula?

I taught statistics at the college level. The way to combine the probabilities of a sequence of independent events is what I used. It can be shown rather simply using a tree diagram. At the top are the different outcomes of the first die roll. Beneath each of those outcomes insert the full set of possibilities of the second die roll, and so on down the page, building a tree structure.

In this case there were two possible outcomes for each event. So the top level has 2 outcomes, the second level has 4, the third level, 8 and so on increasing by powers of 2.

If there were more possible outcomes (e.g., in land, naval, or air combats), say 5, then the first level would have 5, the second 25, and the third 125. This is what makes calculating the likelihood of success for a groups of attacks on a front line so difficult.

Chess is considered very difficult because the branching logic for possible outcomes (i.e., moves) is so large. But really there are ~20 per side per turn. That makes looking a couple of turns ahead 20**4 = 160,000 possible outcomes/positions. WIF is much worse, because there are easily 100 units that can move and attack in a turn (air + naval + land). Depending on where the units stop their movement, the attacks can vary enormously. Throw in weather and action choices, and the possibilities surely increase to the thousands per side per impulse. 4 impulses would then yield, say, 2000**4 = 16,000,000,000,000.

I've been to Las Vegas several times along with Atlantic City and worked at the Hard Rock casino here.

Rhetorical Question: Steve when you go to Las Vegas do you have a system you play that never fails?

Of course you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I taught statistics at the college level. The way to combine the probabilities of a sequence of independent events is what I used. It can be shown rather simply using a tree diagram. At the top are the different outcomes of the first die roll. Beneath each of those outcomes insert the full set of possibilities of the second die roll, and so on down the page, building a tree structure.

In this case there were two possible outcomes for each event. So the top level has 2 outcomes, the second level has 4, the third level, 8 and so on increasing by powers of 2.

If there were more possible outcomes (e.g., in land, naval, or air combats), say 5, then the first level would have 5, the second 25, and the third 125. This is what makes calculating the likelihood of success for a groups of attacks on a front line so difficult.

Using your sequence of independent events please explain:

How does 80% in two rolls become 64%?

While 20% in two rolls becomes 36%,

Working with dice combinations two 10-sided dice give you 100 possible combinations.

Of that 100 possible combinations only three dice combinations will be a 2 or less.

The first die roll is listed horizontally. The second die roll is listed vertically.

...1234567890 1 xx 2 x 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

I've been to Las Vegas several times along with Atlantic City and worked at the Hard Rock casino here.

Rhetorical Question: Steve when you go to Las Vegas do you have a system you play that never fails?

Of course you do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I taught statistics at the college level. The way to combine the probabilities of a sequence of independent events is what I used. It can be shown rather simply using a tree diagram. At the top are the different outcomes of the first die roll. Beneath each of those outcomes insert the full set of possibilities of the second die roll, and so on down the page, building a tree structure.

In this case there were two possible outcomes for each event. So the top level has 2 outcomes, the second level has 4, the third level, 8 and so on increasing by powers of 2.

If there were more possible outcomes (e.g., in land, naval, or air combats), say 5, then the first level would have 5, the second 25, and the third 125. This is what makes calculating the likelihood of success for a groups of attacks on a front line so difficult.

Using your sequence of independent events please explain:

How does 80% in two rolls become 64%?

While 20% in two rolls becomes 36%,

Working with dice combinations two 10-sided dice give you 100 possible combinations.

Of that 100 possible combinations only three dice combinations will be a 2 or less.

The first die roll is listed horizontally. The second die roll is listed vertically.

...1234567890 1 xx 2 x 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

My 'system', which I learned in college, is that it is always best to be the house. I don't gamble against the house - it is like giving money away. For instance, in Las Vegas the casinos will tell you the odds of you winning at each game of chance; it's never 100+%. Poker among friends is a different story, but I will only play very small stakes even there. While I am an excellent chess player, my skill at poker isn't worth risking my hard earned money.

---

Here's how the odds for the land combat tables are explained in the Players Manual.

If you are having difficulties with this example, you should really not be offering AI advice. I think brian's rule in the post above is a good one to follow.

Excuse me for trying to understand a poorly written formula. Is it better now?

It only took me three posts to get them to post the formula in the first place. Then I had to figure it out.

Did you note my changes to the formula to arrive at a percentage (1) (Outcome A * Outcome C) * 100?

That is how Steve should have posted the formula.

Have you ever programmed a computer professionally?

I'm glad you agree with Brian others have posted just the opposite. To me 20% is a good bet.

Since you just started posting here today "Welcome to the MWiF forum".

Control Alternate Delete 906.

The "poorly written formula" you describe is a pretty simple probability distribution not unlike flipping a coin twice. The expected outcomes from that experiment are:

25% TWO Heads 25% TWO Tails 50% ONE Head and ONE Tail

because each event (Head or Tail) has a 50% probability. I hope we can agree on that.

I have posted several times in this forum, though in different threads. My profession is corporate finance so I do not write software for a living. Though, for the life of me, I cannot see what that has to do with the probability distribution we have been discussing. Also, for what it is worth, I have been beta testing MWiF during the last 2 1/2 years.

Example: If you cast your bait and have a 10% chance to get a mackerel per cast, what is your probability to get two mackerel in a row? It is 10% to get the first one (0,1) times the second one 10% (0,1) = 1% (0,01) IF i got a mackerel in my first cast and holding it in the tail THEN I have 10% (0,1) chance to get a second one...

1) The "poorly written formula" you describe is a pretty simple probability distribution not unlike flipping a coin twice. The expected outcomes from that experiment are:

2) 25% TWO Heads 25% TWO Tails 50% ONE Head and ONE Tail

because each event (Head or Tail) has a 50% probability. I hope we can agree on that.

3)I have posted several times in this forum, though in different threads. My profession is corporate finance so I do not write software for a living. Though, for the life of me, I cannot see what that has to do with the probability distribution we have been discussing. Also, for what it is worth, I have been beta testing MWiF during the last 2 1/2 years.

1) To a programmer you would be considered an "end user" to you the formula is simple and understandable. As a programmer it is a poorly written set of specifications.

Example:

Steve changed 80% to .8 and 20% to .2 unnecessaryly, with no reason, or instructions as to why.

I started multiplying 80 and 20 but didn't divide the result by 100 to get a percent (Outcome A * Outcome C) /100. I then thought this would probably confuse people since it wouldn't look like Steve's formula. The way a formula looks means a lot to people.

So I decided to submit my own example of the formula to make my point. But forgot that I needed to change the part of the document that I had been working on.

2) Statistically yes. But flipping coins is a bad example after the probability study on flipping coins disproved the statistics.

But the situation is not flipping coins we are rolling dice looking for a set of values.

3) Your profile shows only two posts on this forum since October 12, 2012.

Have you ever submitted specifications to your IT people for coding? They would probably explain that your computer has the comparable intelligence to that of a three-year-old human. You have to be specific with your instructions.

Two and a half years in the beta I'm glad to see they got some new people in there.

New business You have suggested I cease posting advice on AI.

I have tried to get members of the beta to post on what they like about the game.

They have all refused.

One even posted he would rather flame people than post about the game.

Other than the "Best WWII movie?" thread there have been ZERO posts on the game not initiated by me.

I originally started this under a thread to discuss player global strategy. Steve moved this to the AI threads.

Since you are from Finance I would think the production aspect would be of interest to you. Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

80% is 80 divided by 100, which is 0.8. Extraneous, all your above posts indicate no knowledge of probability and a pretty poor grasp of basic mathematics but you lash out and blame others for your ignorance.

Plenty of people have started posts about the game. I've started several but from memory they were some time ago. In short, you appear to have a very strange attitude and have trouble getting along with people.

Just in case you're wondering, I am a commercial programmer and achieved a perfect score for university probability

1) 80% is 80 divided by 100, which is 0.8. Extraneous, all your above posts indicate no knowledge of probability and a pretty poor grasp of basic mathematics but you lash out and blame others for your ignorance.

2) Plenty of people have started posts about the game. I've started several but from memory they were some time ago. In short, you appear to have a very strange attitude and have trouble getting along with people.

Just in case you're wondering, I am a commercial programmer and achieved a perfect score for university probability

Neilster

Neilster do you receive all your programming assignments verbally?

1) And 100% is 1. You don't have to divide you can multiply by 0.01 its your choice.

Probability ~ the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes

Odds ~ the probability that one thing is so or will happen rather than another.

1) The "poorly written formula" you describe is a pretty simple probability distribution not unlike flipping a coin twice. The expected outcomes from that experiment are:

2) 25% TWO Heads 25% TWO Tails 50% ONE Head and ONE Tail

because each event (Head or Tail) has a 50% probability. I hope we can agree on that.

3)I have posted several times in this forum, though in different threads. My profession is corporate finance so I do not write software for a living. Though, for the life of me, I cannot see what that has to do with the probability distribution we have been discussing. Also, for what it is worth, I have been beta testing MWiF during the last 2 1/2 years.

1) To a programmer you would be considered an "end user" to you the formula is simple and understandable. As a programmer it is a poorly written set of specifications.

Example:

Steve changed 80% to .8 and 20% to .2 unnecessaryly, with no reason, or instructions as to why.

I started multiplying 80 and 20 but didn't divide the result by 100 to get a percent (Outcome A * Outcome C) /100. I then thought this would probably confuse people since it wouldn't look like Steve's formula. The way a formula looks means a lot to people.

So I decided to submit my own example of the formula to make my point. But forgot that I needed to change the part of the document that I had been working on.

2) Statistically yes. But flipping coins is a bad example after the probability study on flipping coins disproved the statistics.

But the situation is not flipping coins we are rolling dice looking for a set of values.

3) Your profile shows only two posts on this forum since October 12, 2012.

Have you ever submitted specifications to your IT people for coding? They would probably explain that your computer has the comparable intelligence to that of a three-year-old human. You have to be specific with your instructions.

Two and a half years in the beta I'm glad to see they got some new people in there.

New business You have suggested I cease posting advice on AI.

I have tried to get members of the beta to post on what they like about the game.

They have all refused.

One even posted he would rather flame people than post about the game.

Other than the "Best WWII movie?" thread there have been ZERO posts on the game not initiated by me.

I originally started this under a thread to discuss player global strategy. Steve moved this to the AI threads.

Since you are from Finance I would think the production aspect would be of interest to you. Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them. Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them. Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

You know I will if he will.

Have you informed him about my contributions to the game?

Or are serving beta testers now immune to criticism?

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

I have tried to get members of the beta to post on what they like about the game.

They have all refused.

One even posted he would rather flame people than post about the game.

Other than the "Best WWII movie?" thread there have been ZERO posts on the game not initiated by me.

I originally started this under a thread to discuss player global strategy. Steve moved this to the AI threads.

Since you are from Finance I would think the production aspect would be of interest to you. Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?

To some extent, I think this is a fair question about what the beta team's role is, or should be, in the public forum. Here is what guides me on this subject:

1. I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement which limits what I can say in the public forum. Various aspects of the program are covered by that agreement and I just will not comment on them.

2. I have a limited about of time available due to work and personal considerations. Because of this my choice has been to focus on Beta testing.

3. While I may not post much in the Public forum, I have been somewhat active in the Beta forum and in other ways. If you look at the production planning map from a couple of months ago, you will see that I was credited by Steve as the author. While I did the layout and editing, there was massive input from other Beta testers and it was very much a team effort. That was not a post per se, but a contribution?

4. Steve, via his monthly status reports, keeps this forum apprised as to the game's status. I have never seen this from any other developer, and really there is not much I could add to that discussion.

5. My experience with World in Flames is somewhat limited. Actually, I have never played a single impulse of the board game. I have a couple editions, two sets of maps and most of the counters - still unpunched. There is no way I could ever set this beast up in my apartment, let alone try it solo. I have played many computer games over the years, and was drawn to World in Flames by its reputation and the sheer audacity of what it does. Like many others, I followed Steve's posts and finally volunteered in March 2011. Given this, I really do not have much to add about the player's various strategic options within the game. I have learned the system, well some of it, through Beta testing and if Patrice, Paul, Peter, Michael, Orm, Lars, (et al) are saying something, it might be a good idea to listen.

6. The general tone of this forum often times is extremely negative bordering on toxic, or it seems that way to me. This is driven by frustration over the development time as is understandable. I agree, and think Steve would also, that it has taken to long. What can we say, or should we say, until there is a release date? I worry about the message being transmitted via these exchanges and if new members are getting turned off. I do not enjoy the negativity and, for the most part, therefore do not participate.

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release) I have enjoyed reading your tutorials, and it seems that the Manual is going to be a nice book in itself. I am struggling with the Rules as Written, but it is hard. Sometimes it is of the "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part" kind of reading, of Marx (not Karl) fame

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release) I have enjoyed reading your tutorials, and it seems that the Manual is going to be a nice book in itself. I am struggling with the Rules as Written, but it is hard. Sometimes it is of the "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part" kind of reading, of Marx (not Karl) fame

it is really hard to pre-release something that is still being edited.

Back off on attacking other posters, especially when you know so little about them. Cad908's contribution to MWIF has been enormous. For instance, he has tested all the US Entry Options to make sure that code works. He has tested all possible land moves by all units types, in all weather, in all terrain, across all hexside terrain - and has proven that all that code works. He has extensively tested the Vichy France subphases. He has tested NetPlay as much as I have. I could add to this list, but I think I have made my point.

You know I will if he will.

Have you informed him about my contributions to the game?

Or are serving beta testers now immune to criticism?

I disagree strongly.

Just because someone says that you are wrong, does not mean they are attacking you personally. I am told by the compiler dozens of times every day that I am wrong, but I do not believe that the compiler is attacking me personally. I've had beta testers reporting thousands of bugs in the game - where for one reason or another "I've done something wrong". That is not an attack on me personally.

The number of times you have said something that was incorrect in the forum is not a small number. But rarely have you posted, "oh yeah, I got that wrong." This is just one case. You asked Cad908 "Why haven't you posted something in two and a half years?" If you had bothered to look at his post, you would have seen that he has had over 1000 posts. Conclusion: your statement about his posts was wrong. But that seems to be a very difficult thing for you to admit. Instead you change the subject so the argument goes in another direction (e.g., about beta testers posting to the open forum).

You see, you could have stated to Cad908 something like: "I haven't seen a lot of posts by you." That would have been an objective statement and non-aggressive. It would have opened the door for him to reply factually. That's not your style though is it?

As for your statement: "You know I will if he will.", that made me laugh. Years ago I decided that you appear to believe you have 'WON' any discussion/argument if you made the last post. Regardless of how convoluted a position you have to take (e.g., arguing about grammar and syntax in rules) to justify your opinion, you just keep going and going.

---

And yes, you have managed to make me visibly irritated. That is not easy to do.

err...it would be so wonderful if there were a pre-release of the Manual...(at least a partial pre-release) I have enjoyed reading your tutorials, and it seems that the Manual is going to be a nice book in itself. I am struggling with the Rules as Written, but it is hard. Sometimes it is of the "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part" kind of reading, of Marx (not Karl) fame

Thanks.

I decided to not to try to rewrite RAW (ADG's Rules as Written) when I wrote RAC (MWIF's Rules as Coded). RAC is 98% the same as RAW. Correcting all the grammar and vagueness of RAW would have been a lot of work and would have run the risk of a change in wording changing the meaning of a rule. Instead I decided to write the Players Manual as a full explanation of how MWIF works. For example, Section 7 is 53 pages, a step by step progress through the sequence of play.

I expect to post a few more screenshots later this month in the thread the Printed Manual.